simple and quick answer: ZFS is battle-tested on Solaris. ditto for ext3 and JFS on Linux.
i don't think any significant enterprise would risk their production data on such a Frankenstein :-P They would all go with the vendor-certified and -validated stand-alone filesystems, running on a sufficiently beefy enterprise storage solution like EMC Symmetrix, to handle their HA and replication requirements. On 7/3/07, Zak B. Elep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I wouldn't go for ZFS until it's integrated into kernel proper instead > > of via FUSE). Too much performance concerns to worry about -- and the > > possibility of the user mode FUSE daemon dying. Not for / at > > least. > > How does ZFS compare to, say, a bundle of regular filesystems (ext3, > jfs, and yes, even reiserfs, take your pick,) possibly replicated on a > Venti[1] store, and served as a single namespace over v9fs (9P2000[2] on > Linux, now in the mainline kernel)? > > Cheers, > > Zakame > > > > Footnotes: > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venti > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9P > > -- > Zak B. Elep > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________ > Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List > [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) > Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists > Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph > -- Orlando Andico Sales Consulting - Emerging Technologies ASEAN Oracle (Philippines) Corporation The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
